卡那卡那富語焦點系統之語意及言談功能

Abstract

本論文旨在探究高雄那瑪夏區卡那卡那富語之焦點系統，以構詞句法、語意角色及語用功能三個面向進行分析。研究認為卡語存在三種使用於直述句的焦點類別，即主事焦點、受事焦點和工具焦點，而表示地方的後綴標記僅出現在名物化結構裡。各焦點句型所引發的語意角色亦不同，其中受事焦點主格論元的種類最為豐富。另外本文也採用Givón (1983, 2001)將文本主題性量化的研究方法，嘗試一窺卡語焦點系統是否與主題性產生互動。語料庫統計結果使我們發現，無論在主事或受事焦點句型中，主事者論元的主題性皆較受事論元高。受事者論元則主題性中等，在主事焦點句型中甚至更低。如此的語用歧異顯示非主事焦點句型並非被動句，而是句法上擁有兩個論元的及物句。具有雙論元的主事焦點句型則與所謂的延伸性不及物結構(Dixon 1984, Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011)相呼應。最後本研究將納入構句、語意角色及語用功能所得出的結果和鄒語作類型上的比較，進一步檢視鄒語系分支假設。以Huang (2002)提出的南島語言連續性來說，卡語應落於鄒語和賽德克語之間。

This study investigates the voice system in Kanakanavu, a Formosan language spoken in southern Taiwan, primarily from three perspectives—morphosyntax, semantic role, and discourse functions. On the one hand, our analysis reveals that Kanakanavu has three indicative voice types, namely Agent voice, Patient voice, and Instrumental voice, whereas the assumed locative marker occurs only in nominalized structure. The semantic roles triggered in a clause also vary in accordance with each voice type, with Patient voice capable of carrying the largest number of semantics roles on the nominative argument. On the other hand, the quantitative approach proposed by Givón (1983, 2001) is adopted in the analyses in order to access the notion of topicality reflected in the use of Kanakanavu voice system. By examining the statistical results retrieved from our corpus, we found that the Agent argument, whether in Actor- or Non-actor voice clauses, exhibits higher topicality, whereas the Patient argument in NAV clauses is only moderately topical and is even less so in AV ones. The discrepancy of the topicality rendered in the arguments implies that the NAV construction does not function as passive, but rather as a transitive clause with two core-like arguments. This result corroborates the feasibility of analyzing two-argument AV clauses in Kanakanavu, as well as in some other Formosan languages, as Extended Intransitive Constructions (Dixon 1984, Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011). We will finally incorporate the above results with regard to voice morphology, semantics and discourse behavior, and attempt to compare with Tsou on a typological scale. Our findings reveal that in the continuum of the pragmatics of Austronesian languages, Kanakanavu may be positioned between Tsou and Seediq (cf. Huang 2002).